Jump to content

Would you pay for WAFM?


Kula66

Would you pay for WAFM?  

60 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you pay for WAFM?

    • Yes - I'd buy it
    • No - not bothered/they should fix it for free.


Recommended Posts

To retain perspective - "WAFM" is an unofficial term applied to advanced munition flight modeling, where every individual munition is dynamically modeled in real-time according to it's actual physical properties. It does not necessarily refer to seeker models or ECM or any other electronic components of the weapon. However, it is presumed that when ED spends time developing a new physics model for a munition that includes electronic components, they probably also spend time developing a new electronics model, but this is only an assumption.

 

In developing DCS, ED "WAFMed" ballistic projectiles, such as machine gun and cannon rounds, artillery rounds, bombs and unguided rockets. The only guided munition remodeled under WAFM was the Vikhr missile. Ultimately, all guided munitions, including AAMs, AGMs and SAMs, will hopefully be "WAFMed". This may or may not include new seeker and other electronic component modeling. Regardless, all WAFM models were developed and integrated into DCS, not Flaming Cliffs. I'm sorry, not trying to be harsh, but even if 50 forum members agree to pay a nominal fee for an FC WAFM upgrade, it has no practical meaning to ED. A few hundred bucks can't possibly finance months of development.

 

Lastly, WAFM has nothing to do with the various raised issues about missile performance in Lock On. WAFM is now part of an entirely different product and cannot be "ported" into Lock On. However, we've said countless times now that ED hopes to be able to address some of the issues raised by the community in a 1.13 patch if more resources for one become available at a later time. Contrary to some opions, even a "small" patch typically requires at least a few weeks of coding and testing. Right now, higher priority projects are taking up all of the team's resources and the company can't put everything on hold to make a patch for FC.

- EB

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Nothing is easy. Everything takes much longer.

The Parable of Jane's A-10

Forum Rules

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^^there was never WAFM in F-15.

 

Pilotasso, you know what I said about 1.02 then a downgrade after that. Call it what you will. You know exactly what I was trying to say. Just put the F15 back the way it was in 1.02. That is fixing a Mistake on ED's part, that should not have been touched in the first place. Don't ask me to pay for their mistakes. I agree if you want something new, ya gotta pay. A fix I think not. Please no word games when you know what was meant. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say I tend to agree with ThomasDWeiss... if so many people who currently play LockOn on daily basis so wish for some really required fixes (not new stuff, just fixing what's already there) feel that ED doesn't care about fixing some things what most of us, if not all, think needs fixing... then there will be general assumption in future that ED will take same approach in future products, which could make current players of LockOn think they shouldn't get BlackShark because they could expect the same...

 

I still think BlackShark will be a high quality product but if there are bugs in it that don't get fixed because of other priorities then it makes people think not to get their product because of lack of after support or fixes. To me it kind of feels like when you go and buy a TV of certain brand... and TV starts playing up and you expect a fix and you don't quite get it (you might get it replaced but new one plays up again) you'll normally tend to no longer want to buy any more TV's (or including other products) of that same brand because you develop a misstrust...

 

I would most certainly not like to see this as I really enjoy flying online... and if people who currently fly LockOn don't want to buy BS because of this then I end up not having anyone to fly with in BS...

 

So hey... this is by no means a push to get this v1.13 patch roling or going... just to put a perspective on most consumer point of view... I will be getting BS which ever way it turn out, when it's out... and most likely will be decreasing or stopping playing LockOn because BS will take most, if not all, of my attention. Learning such high complex modeling of avionics and learning to master the Ka-50 will be a challenge (in a good way) for sure :D

No longer active in DCS...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a long divide between caring about user issues and being able to address them. If you feel ED doesn't care about the issues, you are mistaken. However, I understand everyone makes their decisions based on the facts as they see them. I'm sorry I can't tell you anything more to change the facts as you see them, but we are being frank about the current company workload, which is taking up all of the staff with other projects. I prefer we do that than make false promises.

- EB

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Nothing is easy. Everything takes much longer.

The Parable of Jane's A-10

Forum Rules

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well fixed shouldn't be required to pay... adding new stuff could be yes and no, depending on level of addvancement/adding new stuff... Since we don't have WAFM in LockOn and it wasn't indended to have it to begin with if ED decided to add it it would be up to them if they wanted to charge for it or not as they would have every right to charge for such new features. Although it would be very unlikely for them to release addition of only that... if they were to release it it would be part of bigger software "upgrade".

No longer active in DCS...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a long divide between caring about user issues and being able to address them.

 

EB, I hate to direct this question at you because it's not your decision and you may not be in a position to answer, but...

 

Do you think ED realizes that it will likely lose loyal customers if these major problems with its product aren't addressed? As was mentioned previously, people don't generally go back to a brand of product if the maker has failed to support its product to the satisfaction of its customers in the past. And I do realize that that statement can be countered with stating that patches have been made for LOMAC and FC and so it was supported. And with this type of product, the customers always want more. Be it better graphics or higher fidelity avionics or whatever. But the missiles are part of what defines a modern combat sim. We've been waiting about a year and a half since the last patch hoping to hear something from ED saying that a fix is coming. Hearing that ED may not have time to fix the missiles because they are too busy building a new product that they want us to buy is a bit ironic. I understand that it's the company line and it's all you can say unless ED says different.

 

I have very much enjoyed ED's products and have seen how talented they can be at creating flight sims. I would really, really hate to be faced with the decision to continue to support them because they have decided not to support LO at it's final stage.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EB, I hate to direct this question at you because it's not your decision and you may not be in a position to answer, but...
Actually, I appreciate the question. I took on my current role in large part to try and bridge the communication divide between ED and the English community. I feel there is an undeserved and misplaced lack of trust toward ED and I hope to be able to help that, because I know ED and I know the goals of the company and many of its employees are one and the same as ours - high fidelity military flight simulation. That unity is lost in the arguments continually raging on this and other forums or maybe it's never realized in the first place, but in any case I think it would do us all good to look at things not as Lock On costumers, but as ED costumers - ED being the company that is working hard and against odds to make the next military flight simulator the best one ever. I know that some may find that a leap of faith without much to go on today, but seriously, that's the truth. My personal opinion is that today ED is in the strongest position it's been since the original team of 1995. I think, given some time, some luck and some benefit of the doubt from the community, their work will develop into the closest thing to the holy grail we've all been dreaming about since the early 90s. There are no guarantees and it's possible none of this will happen or that only parts of it do or that ED dumps DCS for something else in the future, but I still wouldn't hold it against them, because I know the guys love their work and are trying to actually make what we are only wishing about. To me, that's all that really counts and everything else is just details.

 

I think we've made it clear that ED would like to do another patch, so the desire to address community needs is there. For those that still have doubts, we also mentioned that it was ED themselves who initiated a thread asking for fix candidates for a possible patch on the beta forum. The question is simply one of practical limitations and sacrifice - should the company stop work on other projects - of which DCS is only one - to make a patch? I think we can agree the answer is no. Can they plan ahead and maybe squeeze it in between future projects? Maybe, we just don't know right now. That's why for now we say what we do - at this point, right now, there are no free hands. We hope there will be later, in which case we'd like to do a patch. This is only the description of what's actually happening - nothing more, nothing less. Does it leave open the possibility that no patch ever comes out? Yes, that's possible as well. Everyone can then decide what that means for their relationship with the company. While it wouldn't matter much to me personally, I understand that it would to others and for that I hope ED can release one.

 

Do you think ED realizes that it will likely lose loyal customers if these major problems with its product aren't addressed? As was mentioned previously, people don't generally go back to a brand of product if the maker has failed to support its product to the satisfaction of its customers in the past. And I do realize that that statement can be countered with stating that patches have been made for LOMAC and FC and so it was supported. And with this type of product, the customers always want more. Be it better graphics or higher fidelity avionics or whatever. But the missiles are part of what defines a modern combat sim. We've been waiting about a year and a half since the last patch hoping to hear something from ED saying that a fix is coming. Hearing that ED may not have time to fix the missiles because they are too busy building a new product that they want us to buy is a bit ironic. I understand that it's the company line and it's all you can say unless ED says different.

 

I have very much enjoyed ED's products and have seen how talented they can be at creating flight sims. I would really, really hate to be faced with the decision to continue to support them because they have decided not to support LO at it's final stage.

When it comes to questions about ED's business management, I always go back to one undeniable fact: ED has not only survived, but grew in a market where every competitor either failed or quit. That can't be because of bad business management. There may be various internal problems, miscalculations and mistakes, but at the end of the day, they're here and don't look like they're going. In fact, they're starting their own product line, one that boasts of confidence.

 

Even though this may upset some people and will probably be misconstrued all over the place, I'll finish with this, because I think the community needs to realize it to retain perspective. The often use of "customer base", or "loyal customers" as you mentioned above is in reality a big stretch. As recently mentioned elsewhere, this is something that has been pointed out by LP when all hell broke loose about F4:AF and is confirmed in ED's experience - the online community believes it is far more numerically important than it really is. It's loud, sure, but it's only a fraction of the market. The cold truth is that whatever numbers ED loses in "alienating" people by not releasing a patch, they will, in all likelihood, more than make up in the new product line. Does that mean they don't care? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Regardless of market realities, ED still wants to serve its costumers beyond the cold numbers and address the issues raised by the community. However, patches don't grow on trees, we don't do magic and we won't make promises we may not be able to keep.

 

I think I'm done. :drunk:

  • Like 1

- EB

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Nothing is easy. Everything takes much longer.

The Parable of Jane's A-10

Forum Rules

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lastly, WAFM has nothing to do with the various raised issues about missile performance in Lock On. WAFM is now part of an entirely different product and cannot be "ported" into Lock On.

 

EB, sorry to contradict, but WAFM is a direct result of the various issues for missiles in LO - its has been discussed as such for a number of years. It may now be part of a different product, but it came from LO.

 

I've done enough programming to know that developers usually carry forward ideas and methods they've spent years developing in one product into the next. I'm sure the 2 products have a lot in common under the hood - even if the all code is new. Its all possible in code!

 

However, I'm sure you know the code better than me!

 

It would just seem like a good way forward - WAFM (and associated seeker updates) could be tested and ED could get paid for doing it.

 

I'm actually surprised with the result of this poll - given the amount of money most of us spend on graphics cards, PCs, pedals, Track IR, HOTAS etc and time, the cost of an updat/ fix would seem small. However, I guess I too have under estamated the level of feeling of the majority of LO simmers here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I'm actually surprised with the result of this poll - given the amount of money most of us spend on graphics cards, PCs, pedals, Track IR, HOTAS etc and time, the cost of an updat/ fix would seem small...

 

I'll be honest and say I feel the same... spending thousands of dollars for PC hardware and not wanting to spend maybe $10-20 (this is a very very rough estimate on my part) on something that would be well worth while... I don't know, I personally would pay for a good improvement of the code/software and addition of some new features... but that's just me:joystick:

No longer active in DCS...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the answers "No - not bothered" and "they should fix it for free." - which are very far apart - were put together you can't really tell if the majority of people care about WAFM in Lomac or not. It could be that vast majority want WAFM in the game but most of them want the addon (it wouldn't be a "fix") should be free, or it could be that a majority doesn't care about WAFM in Lomac as they feel it's more important that ED concentrate their efforts on the new DCS.

i7-2600k@4GHz, 8GB, R9 280X 3GB, SSD, HOTAS WH, Pro Flight Combat Pedals, TIR5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello EB,

 

I salute you on an excellent post. Although I'm personally happy as a critic, much of what you wrote is very true, and this poll has once again shown that we critics are often very far from being in agreement amongst ourselves.

 

The main point I would disagree with is the importance of the online community. We are indeed a small minority compared to the customer base, but as Ice has pointed out, there is an even larger non-customer base out there, to which we are the key. For example, I didn't buy F4:AF, because of what I've read about it - things I wouldn't have read except for the voice of their demanding online community. I truly believe that ED's entire customer base is a tiny fraction of what it could be - and, that it has always been, because of what people like us uncover on their behalf.

 

But I guess, that's one opinion against another, until I develop my own sim and have my own experiences and facts to back it up. ;)

 

Another point I would question is the direction that ED is taking, and the assurance that we all want the same thing. In light of recent announcements, can you clarify for us anew, why the Ka-50 was chosen as the focus, and how it fits into the direction of development that you believe we should all be agreeing on? If ED really wants to model fighters, why do they keep throwing resources at the far more difficult task of modeling CAS? No other fighter sim that I know of needed to take such a difficult, time-consuming and meandering route to its goal. If on the other hand their focus is CAS, because they think that's where the bigger market is based on helo sims featuring RWRs and dynamic campaigns and gameplay balance like Longbow and EECH, then I think a shock is coming, when it's discovered that the helo community wants the same things that we do.

 

Frankly, I don't think the decision makers at ED believe they have missed any fighter enthusiast customers at all. By their own public comments in the Russian forum, they have indicated a belief that they simply exhausted the entire market of us. You have seen or heard different?

 

-SK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will not make any more comments on the importance of the community, as what I've said is already being misconstrued, as I knew it would be. When I wrote that bit, I was very conscious of my words and if you read what I wrote carefully, you will hopefully see that it is a statement of numerical fact, not a judgement value or estimate on the overall importance or impact of the community, which I personally and I'm sure many ED members feel is VERY important. Afterall, they pay to run a community forum and participate in it very actively.

 

Frankly, I don't think the decision makers at ED believe they have missed any fighter enthusiast customers at all. By their own public comments in the Russian forum, they have indicated a belief that they simply exhausted the entire market of us. You have seen or heard different?

I'm not sure what comments you are referring to, but yes, knowing what I know, I have no reason to believe that fighters will not be added as DCS modules. That's beside the point that when I refer to "us", I mean the flight sim community as a whole, which includes fighter jocks in some relative composition to CAS freaks and chopper whores. My own sim fantasy is a late-80s, Cold War gone hot, Su-27 vs. F-15 scenario and I'm not disappointed with ED's direction. As most of my statements on the product, this isn't a hint, just a literal statement.

- EB

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Nothing is easy. Everything takes much longer.

The Parable of Jane's A-10

Forum Rules

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Loyal customers" was not meant to represent only the online community. Poor missiles effect everyone who uses LOMAC for A2A combat simulation.

 

should the company stop work on other projects - of which DCS is only one - to make a patch? I think we can agree the answer is no.

 

I don't, for one second, think that ED's projects will come to a halt if someone is assigned to patch the missiles. Having heard from insiders with ED about how they work, I would imagine only one coder would be assigned the task. It would delay whatever this coder was already assigned to do but would not bring the entire company or individual projects to a halt. But if I'm wrong and it would take the entire crew of coders to do it, then that is what should be done. Support for a product simply cannot be dropped when it is in such a sorry state. Obviously we disagree on that. You may even consider it unreasonable. And conversely, I consider it unreasonable for a niche software maker to let this unintended result of a patch go unaddressed and then offer a new product to the same niche. It should be plainly apparent that some customers are feeling burnt by ED. It is ED's choice as to whether they remedy that.

 

In the end, all I want is to be able to enjoy LO like I used to. So call me selfish. I can guarantee I'm not the only one who is frustrated by the state of LO's missiles. I can name names but I won't because now is the time for each of them to stand up themselves and be heard. And if they don't, at least I did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would pay for myself and 3 others ;)

 

I think you are looking at about 1 week total if you want to implement and test all the fixes proposed.

 

 

About 1 hour or so for getting the code to what seems is right, then the rest of the week testing with the community. I think it could work.

S = SPARSE(m,n) abbreviates SPARSE([],[],[],m,n,0). This generates the ultimate sparse matrix, an m-by-n all zero matrix. - Matlab help on 'sparse'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And your point is what?

 

My point is that at the time of that post, a long time ago, you assured us that the devs would fix the missile problems because they knew it was important. Now, obviously things are different and you've changed your tune to one of "if they become deadlier people will complain that they cannot dodge them."

 

So really, what was your point? There's no sense in fixing the missiles because even if they are more accurate there will always be complaining?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, we're going to keep running around in circles because apparently when Wags said that the 1.13 patch will be worked on AFTER Black Shark is released, that was not understood. Personally, I don't think anything is going to change that.

Further, there are -other- things to fix as well, and I don't think ED is looking to do all this piecemeal.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...